MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7043726321

Town-Talk and the Cause Célèbre of Robert Browning’s The Ring and the Book

2016· article· en· W7043726321 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDominican Scholar (Dominican University of California) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature: history, themes, analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublicityPoetryIronyPlot (graphics)Ring (chemistry)Focus (optics)Subject (documents)Greatness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay examines Browning’s relentless preoccupation with generating such forms of “idle talk” in The Ring and the Book.3 For the most part, critics from the time of the poem’s initial publication to the present day have focused their energies on speakers directly involved in the case— Pompilia (on her deathbed), Guido, Caponsacchi—or the Pope, as he crafts his learned pronouncement.4 Those who have devoted attention to the first three town talkers, including scholars such as Mary Rose Sullivan and William E. Buckler, give accounts that tend to individualize these personae in ways that obscure the significance of their identities as part of a crowd.5 Richard D. Altick and James F. Loucks bring exceptional focus to the crowd as a figure that advances the plot of The Ring and the Book and furthers dramatic irony through its misperceptions.6 My discussion expands the boundaries of the crowd’s influence further by focusing on the form of its “prattle.” In what follows, I treat the important role that town talk plays not only within the poem but also without— that is, in the world of the poem’s reception and the contexts of Browning’s late-in-life bid for greater fame. I argue that the town talkers within the poem function as a means for Browning to anticipate—even script— the positive response of the public to his poem. Through town talk, The Ring and the Book makes emphatic efforts to usher in its own public welcome. Such efforts seem especially marked when compared with Browning’s earlier works, which also explore the publicity of the poetic voice but tend to focus on miscommunication—usually blamed on the intellectual limitations of a popular audience.7 In The Ring and the Book, the “gossipry” of crowds courses through the veins of the poem with an insistent, vital power that not only produces the cause célèbre of Guido’s trial but also of the poem itself.\n3. See Martin Heidegger, who defines “idle talk” as “gossiping and passing the word along, a process by which its initial lack of grounds to stand on increases to complete groundlessness” (Being in Time, trans. Joan Stambaugh [Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1996], 158).\n4. The lawyers (bks. 8 and 9) are subject to a similar critical fate; Patricia D. Rigg argues that they represent circular returns to Half-Rome’s and Other Half-Rome’s subjective formulations in “Legal ‘Repristination’ in ‘The Ring and the Book,’ ” Browning Institute Studies 18 (1990): 113–30.\n5. Mary Rose Sullivan, “Half-Rome, the Other Half-Rome, Tertium Quid,” in Browning’s Voices in “The Ring and the Book”: A Study of Method and Meaning (University of Toronto Press, 1969), 21–73, details how the personalities of each speaker are formed from their particular life experiences. William E. Buckler identifies specific character traits with each talker— Half-Rome’s male chauvinistic cruelty; Other Half-Rome’s overly romanticized imagination; and Tertium Quid’s nouveau riche insecurity—in “Imaginative Mirrorings: Books II, III, and IV,” in Poetry and Truth in Robert Browning’s “The Ring and the Book” (New York University Press, 1985), 64–98.\n6. Richard D. Altick and James F. Loucks, “The Tragic Stage: Comedy and the Crowd, Miracles and Molinism,” in Browning’s Roman Murder Story: A Reading of “The Ring and the Book” (University of Chicago Press, 1968), 281–326.\n7. In Robert Browning: A Literary Life (New York: Palgrave, 2001), Sarah Wood discusses Browning’s early self-consciousness about fame in poems such as Pauline (1833) and Sordello (1840), his transition into greater publicity through The Ring and the Book, and his later struggles with institutionalized, professional authorship in works such as Pacchiarotto, and How He Worked in Distemper (1876).\n~article excerpt~

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.176 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDominican Scholar (Dominican University of California)Same topicLiterature: history, themes, analysisFrench-language works237,207